EDUCATEAlabama Orientation Module

Teacher Orientation Module

LESSON 7: DIALOGUES and PRINCIPAL DATA

There is need for a data collection procedure that can be used to provide data/information to an evaluator when a)practice in one or more indicators is not observable in the classroom and b) the evaluator has limited first hand information from his/her ongoing observations and activities in the school. The dialogue procedure has been created to fill this gap. A dialogue is a brief, informal conversation about the area of practice or Indicator for which data are needed. Here’s how it works:

Prior to the Fall one-to-one evaluator/teacher orientation meeting (supplement to this online module), both parties should review the 39 EDUCATEAlabama continua and be prepared to identify in that meeting indicators and areas of practice that require dialogue to supplement the evaluator’s current knowledge base (database).

Note. Remember the cross-cutting expectations (areas of practice)! The teacher’s activities in regard to Collaboration, Leadership, and Individualization are likely areas for dialogue as are his/her assessment practices (Standard 2) and accommodations for diversity (Standard 4). In actuality, any indicator may be targeted for dialogue, and the areas for dialogue may vary from teacher to teacher, based on the evaluator’s day-to-day observations of and activities with each teacher.

During their orientation session/meeting, both parties (teacher, evaluator) should agree on the indicators and areas of practice to be covered in one or more dialogue sessions in the Spring. Some of these areas may be ones established for the teacher’s professional learning/growth in the Professional Learning Plan (PLP) toward which he/she is working during the current year.

There is no magic number of indicators/areas to be covered by dialogues. It may be two or 10. The purpose of the dialogues is to ensure that the evaluator has solid, valid information to use in identifying current levels of practice.

In the cross-cutting areas of practice; i.e., collaboration, leadership, and individualization a teacher is not expected to address/focus on all expectations (all standards and indicators) during a single year or even a single 3-year evaluation cycle (tenured teachers). Either in the development of the Professional Learning Plan or Fall orientation meeting, focus for the year should be established in these areas. Again, the focus will vary from teacher to teacher. Most of the definition items focusing on collaboration and leadership, and some of those focusing on individualization of instruction are found at the upper levels of the continua – the Integrating and Innovating levels. Teachers will not reach these levels easily or in short periods of time. That’s OK! Remember that the emphasis in EDUCATEAlabama is growth to standards. It is OK to have current practice identified as Applying or even Emerging in some areas. Furthermore, it should be noted that levels of practice in an Indicator or cross-cutting area can change in either direction from one evaluation to the next. For example, a teacher moving to a new school or different grade level may demonstrate a lower level of practice in his/her first evaluation after the transition.

Limiting the focus for collaboration, leadership, and/or individualization efforts will mean that some/many teachers will not be demonstrating practice above the Applying level in some indicators during a given full evaluation year and perhaps for several years. That’s OK, too! The Applying level connotes a level of practice synonymous with a highly effective classroom teacher. As previously stated, indicators at the Integrating and Innovating levels primarily deal with one’s influence on adult practice beyond one’s own classroom.

During the evaluation year, the teacher should assemble the data/information he/she will want to introduce into the dialogue. If any of this information/data is to be in written form, that should be agreed upon in the Fall orientation meeting.

The evaluator and teacher will mutually agree upon a time/times for the brief, informal dialogues to be carried out. For example, the parties may agree that time for the needed dialogue(s) will be added to the second post-observation conference (Spring observation). Or, they might agree to hold the needed dialogue(s) independent of the post-observation conference.

The format for the dialogues is conversation. A dialogue might begin as simply as the following statement by the evaluator:

“Last fall, we agreed that we would have dialogues about your efforts and activities in the areas of Collaboration (particularly 2b.2, 3 and 4) Leadership (2c.2, 3, 4), Individualization (1.5 and 4d 1 and 2), and student assessment (2c.1, 2c.2, 2c.3, 2c.4). These don’t have to be long conversations, but we need to keep them separate. We’ll have a discussion of each. Let’s start with Collaboration. Tell me what you have done/accomplished in that area.”

A form has been provided to assist the evaluator in taking notes during the dialogue(s). A separate form is to be used for each dialogue. Results of dialogues will be summarized on the Collaborative Summary Report (CSR) and used, along with other relevant data, to identify current levels of practice. You can access this form by clicking on the following link: Dialogue Form.

Principal Data

As suggested by earlier comments, principals and assistant principals (usually the evaluators) have at their disposal data and information collected in the course of day-to-day school operations. For example, there are usually many opportunities for a principal to collect information about many aspects of a teacher’s professionalism (Standard 5). The principal summarizes his/her data in the spaces provided on the CSR.